[Cosmo] Clarification around release process for Cosmo 0.3
aparna at osafoundation.org
Wed Feb 15 17:41:34 PST 2006
The main reason I thought we weren't going to upgrade cosmo-demo to
0,3 was because it involved making sure chandler 0.6 worked
seamlessly with it. That requires considerable testing effort,
including colalborative testing (knowing from our past experience).
We cannot afford to destabilize chandler 0.6+cosmo interoperability
at any cost.
Secondly, I thought cosmo0.3+scooby 0.1 was going to be rushed
release and we weren't going to spend too many cycles testing against
chandler. In fact i remember discussing the possibility of putting
cosmo 0.3 on cosmo-test specifically for that reason.
Thirdly, as Chandler 0.7 evolves, we will have to make sure we have
an instance of cosmo that works with it as well. I am not sure
whether that's going to be cosmo 0.3 or a later version.
All the interested parties will be present at tomorrow's server
meeting so lets take it there.
On Feb 15, 2006, at 5:25 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> I'd rather see Cosmo-demo upgraded, if possible, and even if that
> requires some extra work. The real-life testing we get on cosmo-
> demo is hard to beat, and that testing should be done on the most
> recent released code not on an older release.
> On Feb 15, 2006, at 4:58 PM, Sheila Mooney wrote:
>> I was just speaking to Aparna and there seems to be some confusion
>> about whether or not we are going to upgrade Cosmo-Demo when we
>> release Cosmo 0.3 in early March.
>> Aparna was under the assumption that Cosmo 0.3 would go on some
>> other instance server. The one that was discussed was Cosmo Test.
>> We just wanted get clarification if Aparna's assumption was correct.
>> Cosmo mailing list
>> Cosmo at osafoundation.org
> Cosmo mailing list
> Cosmo at osafoundation.org
More information about the Cosmo